A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AOPA and ATC Privatization



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 3rd 03, 08:46 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message

news:0oq5b.26774
I disagree. The sunset limitation was added during the conference.

Both
the House and the Senate Bill expressly forbade ATC privatization
indefinitely.


No, it just forbade the FAA from further ATC privatization until further

act of congress.

Well, I guess we're just approaching the same question from different
directions. To me, "indefinitely" and "until further act of Congress" is
one and the same, and neither equates to a sunset provision. Congress

voted
that the FAA was to be *prohibited* from further privatizing ATC without

an
act of Congress, ie- privatization was made illegal indefinitley. How
unlike the language into which the two versions were "reconciled" by Don
Young's Administration hitmen.



Negative. Essentially, this opens up 69 VFR towers to contracting

out,
not
71. All 71 towers have already been considered.


Right, I forgot to deduct the two Alaskan towers.


LOL, The Alaska Congressional delegation dang sure didn't!


What makes the provision of VFR tower ATC
services in Alaska any different than the provision of VFR tower ATC
services in the Lower 48 or Hawaii?


Congressional wheeling and dealing. Same reason why West Virginia had
so many dedicated (i.e. non AFSS) FSS's and control towers at places

that
didn't really warrant them up until rather recently.


But if the bottom line is air safety, isn't that a bipartisan issue?


Yep, that is why there is a sunset provision.

Congress certainly thought so when they passed the original versions of

the
unreconciled Bills. And if the bottom line isn't air safety, then why

would
Don Young specifically take Juneau and Merril towers off of the contract
list, a list that includes busier places like Van Nuys and Boeing Field?


Money.

What advantage does having an FAA-run tower bring to Alaska constituents
other than air safety on the airport? It's not like these two Alaska

towers
employ hundreds of Alaskans. I don't know about Merrill, but Juneau only
employs about 12 federal controllers I am told. Not exactly a major job
source even in Alaska.


Jobs.

How then do you pilots define the "core" privatization issue if not

the
provision of contract ATC services versus government ATC services?


Contracting out the performance of tasks is a different issue than

establishing
a seperate PBO or other non-direct government agency to control the

skies.

Actually, isn't that *exactly* what happens at a contract ATC facility?


Eventually.

The task of Air Traffic Control, performed by an air traffic controller,

is
provided to the public by a non-direct, private, for-profit corporate

entity
exercising control over a piece of the National Airspace System sky.


Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements.
(ie RIF)

That's
pretty much the "core" of the privatization issue and it's right upon

AOPA,
right now. Not the year 2007 or later... It seems pretty basic to me

that
there is no difference between privatizing a single federal tower and the
whole national ATC system except a difference in degree. I also believe
that the toleration of the one makes the other inevitable. It doesn't get
more "core" than that, IMO.


AOPA has a larger constituancy than ATC. The fact that AOPA acted in the
best interest of GA, by making an advantagous political deal, is not
surprising.


  #2  
Old September 3rd 03, 09:17 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

[snipped]


Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block improvements.
(ie RIF)


Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO?
Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think
represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA.
Yep, PATCO, the one and only. The ones who said "America can't fire us
all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it just
depends on which flavor of labor you prefer. You see, PATCO wants to see
privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units
to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record
of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to post
a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job private
ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from FAA.

Chip, ZTL



  #3  
Old September 3rd 03, 09:21 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989
Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves PATCO?


As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who
lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the
larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea?



  #4  
Old September 3rd 03, 09:34 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989
Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves

PATCO?

As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who
lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the
larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea?


Are you claiming PATCO is corrupt?


  #5  
Old September 3rd 03, 09:47 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...


Are you claiming PATCO is corrupt?

I am claiming that in 1981 PATCO management misrepresented things to
the membership that caused them to strike when they might not otherwise
have, they then weaseled themselves to the LRB to disgrace themselves
futher. I have no clue if the management of that era still has any involvement
in today's PATCO.


  #6  
Old September 3rd 03, 09:53 PM
Chip Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message news:k%r5b.26989
Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981? A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves

PATCO?

As opposed to the the corrupt, lying schemers called PATCO managment who
lied to their members and cooked the strike vote to convince them that the
larger brotherhood had decided that the strike was a good idea?


The one and the same.... :-)

Chip, ZTL




  #7  
Old September 3rd 03, 09:34 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chip Jones" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

[snipped]


Yes, but without a powerful public employees union to block

improvements.
(ie RIF)


Now that's a scream, John! Do you remember August of 1981?


Sure.

A pleasant
little group of unselfish, altruistic Americans who called themselves

PATCO?
Think they're gone from the ATC scene? Think again. Who do you think
represents all of those private *contract* towers these days? Not NATCA.
Yep, PATCO, the one and only.


Nothing has changed, in 30 years.

The ones who said "America can't fire us
all..." Big labor is into ATC no matter whether public or private, it

just
depends on which flavor of labor you prefer.


A choice gives much more latitude.

You see, PATCO wants to see
privatization too- it's right up their alley (more little bargaining units
to represent...) Personally, I think NATCA has a much better track record
of public service than PATCO, but it's your call, bro. I'd be happy to

post
a link to the PATCO site if you want to read about what a great job

private
ATC providers do with all that federal contract money they receive from

FAA.

Good work on the part of PATCO to protect their interests, but civil service
law does not protect contractors.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.